A Poll! A Poll! A Real Poll!

[MightiMidget]

I have a birdhouse in my soul, how much more in my life can they be?

@Alcuinus - I would recommend a book for you...it's called "Wicca's Charm" by Catherine Edward Sanders. She is a Christian who researched Wicca and other pagan religions and compared them with as little bias as possible, and I believe she did an amazing job.

I haven't researched the subject enough, though I have seen in many instances a "name" of something can mean something else entirely. Kind of like all the "demons" in Buffy the Vampire Slayer are basically just other races, like aliens, from different dimensions. They're not directly...spiritually demonic. This is the same reason why demons in Saiyuki don't bother me, whereas Sebastian in Kuroshitsuji does. One is "In name only" the other is "yes you just made a pact with Satan." <--Doesn't (now that I've referenced large amounts of fiction...)

EDIT: I never heard about Rowling being a Christian before...that makes me wonder a bit.

[Atria35]

Oh, yeah. By now it's (or at least should be) well-known that she's a Christian. Made Christian parallels in the stories and everything.

You know... and this makes me so glad I'm as old as I am... part of the reason HP grew on me was because when the first book came out, I was about the same age. And as I grew, the characters grew and matured, and the books grew and matured. And that was awesome, because my friends and I could all anticipate the next book and fangirl, and by the time they came out we were mature enough to read them. And by the time the last book came out, I was an adult and able to look back at it all and feel a bit of wonder that I was able to stay hooked all that time.

Meyers has appeal to really only one age group, though- the teens. Yes, I know that there are fans who are older, but the prose and themes scream 'teens'! And they all came out one after another, which means that the writer didn't really have time to change her style and the fans didn't have time to wait and wonder and experience more of the literary world to decide whether her books were still as good as they thought.

Also: Wicca's Charm is.... okay. It's far better than most of the material out there, but the author still has some misperceptions and outright wrong ideas about Wicca. But as a book to get the basics, yes, I'd highly recommend it.

[LadyRushia]

I believe I read somewhere that for awhile Rowling actually was ambiguous about what she believed for a time and later on professed to be a Christian.

[Nate]

I have a birdhouse in my soul, how much more in my life can they be?

Obviously a lot more if you don't recognize XTC vs. Adam Ant. :p I bet you don't know anything about Strong Bad's Crystal Fortress, or Mission Control either.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

But the symbol itself doesn't have any power, or otherwise opening Wikipedia would turn your computer into like...some sort of Satan computer. So just using it in an anime or in a book or movie, means nothing. It's just a symbol, it has no power, same as a cross hanging on a necklace has no power.

Correct. All graphical symbols hold no innate meaning whatsoever. Rather, collective societies or people-groups attribute a meaning to a symbol. A satanic pentagram or some bloody goats head is no less holy than a crucifix is.

Now, of course, we take this to the next level, and realize that written and spoken language is also symbols, thus are also innately meaningless. As Jacques Derrida said, "All words are metaphors". So when you said:

I understand they are different... but by definition and your own admission, they are the same to a degree. They are different in degree but no one says "that's not magic"... if they did they admit it has appearance of such. For instance: If I went up to the theater and saw a Cats and Dogs poster and said "hm... that's a funny looking camel" pointing to the cat, you would think I'm nuts... because it's a cat. Therefore I see no reason to call it anything else.

Really, "definitive" definitions really don't exist. It's not a cat, but your idea of a cat. Again, "cat" is only defined by your own presumed set of knowledge. So similar with "magic". It's not magic, but it's the magic in your head which you've somehow concluded to be equal to other magic.

[Nate]

Now, of course, we take this to the next level, and realize that written and spoken language is also symbols, thus are also innately meaningless.

"Powerless" and "meaningless" are not synonyms.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

"Powerless" and "meaningless" are not synonyms.

True. But I would say something that holds no innate meaning would hold no power either. So it's still relevant to your point.

[Nate]

I'm just saying I was talking about the symbol having no power, and then you went to "That means words are innately meaningless too!" except I never said anything about the symbols being meaningless, innately or otherwise. A pentagram has plenty of meaning, it has meaning out the wazoo, but it has no power.

I do agree about words being innately meaningless but that's a discussion for another thread!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Correct, hence why I edited my post after realizing my misunderstanding on your part. XD Sorry.

And yes, a Pentagram has plenty of meaning. But it only holds meaning because people attribute meaning to it. By itself it's no different than anything else. It's the ideas which are behind the symbol which matter. This is why people react differently to a cross than a swastika. They all have meaning, but it's not from the symbols themselves.

I do agree about words being innately meaningless but that's a discussion for another thread!

XD Right. Though again, symbols and words are the same. One is just used within the realm of dialect.

[Davidizer13]

XTC vs. Adam Ant

Adam Ant. More specifically, Adam and the Ants.

Just sayin'.

[blkmage]

Suddenly, I feel like I should have taken my semiotics class earlier.

[Atria35]

Suddenly, I feel like I should have taken my semiotics class earlier.

I get the idea that's how most of us feel when they start going into stuff like this.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I get the idea that's how most of us feel when they start going into stuff like this.

That's philosophy for you. A form of overactive thought process which makes the simplest things seem bafflingly (and needlessly) complicated.

Kidding, Ryan. Please don't compose a ten thousand-word essay on how and why I'm wrong.

[Radical Dreamer]

That's philosophy for you. A form of overactive thought process which makes the simplest things seem bafflingly (and needlessly) complicated.

Kidding, Ryan. Please don't compose a ten thousand-word essay on how and why I'm wrong.

I was just going to blame it on one of them using the confundus charm. XD

[LadyRushia]

I was just going to blame it on one of them using the confundus charm. XD

/thread.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

That's philosophy for you. A form of overactive thought process which makes the simplest things seem bafflingly (and needlessly) complicated.

Kidding, Ryan. Please don't compose a ten thousand-word essay on how and why I'm wrong.

Look. Just because something goes over your head does not mean nobody else understands it. It's foolish to assume something is needlessly complicated just because you don't understand it.

Oh, and Avada Kedavra.

[LadyRushia]

I knew Ryan was a Death Eater.

[Nate]

It's foolish to assume something is needlessly complicated just because you don't understand it.

Well, so far the C...

Wait, I don't want to make the thread go in THAT direction. Never mind!

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Yeah things did get a little off topic. Still some-what relevant, but the focus of it went elsewhere. It's not your fault, Nate.

[blkmage]

What I meant was, I wish I had the prerequisite knowledge to get in on this lovely discussion. I am actually going to take a class on semiotics (and lingusitics!) later on. After all, one of the first things we learn in computer science is that data (literally numbers) is meaningless without context. I'm actually fascinated by stuff like languages, whether human, programming, or formal, although most of my background is more grounded in the mathematical aspect.

But yeah, wizards. Thinking about it, I think part of the appeal is in the particular setting, and I don't mean Hogwarts. It's set in the 90s, but in Britain. For North Americans at least, Britain is foreign enough that it's interesting, but familiar enough that it doesn't seem completely in the realm of fantasy. I've always wondered what the underground wizarding world is like in other countries.

Also, it is hilarious to me to imagine Margaret Thatcher getting briefed on Voldemort.

[Atria35]

Also, it is hilarious to me to imagine Margaret Thatcher getting briefed on Voldemort.

Even though the PM at that time was Tony Blair?

[blkmage]

Not during the first time Voldemort was kicking stuff around ლ(╹‿╹ლ)

[Atria35]

.... Man, You got me there! XP XD

[Mr. SmartyPants]

What I meant was, I wish I had the prerequisite knowledge to get in on this lovely discussion. I am actually going to take a class on semiotics (and lingusitics!) later on. After all, one of the first things we learn in computer science is that data (literally numbers) is meaningless without context. I'm actually fascinated by stuff like languages, whether human, programming, or formal, although most of my background is more grounded in the mathematical aspect.

We often fail to realize how important language is as a "metaphysical prerequisite" to abstract thinking. Continental philosophers (Hegel, Derrida, the existentialists, etc) definitely realized this. So yes, there is a great surprising tie-in between linguistics with this stuff.

[the_wolfs_howl]

I just thought I'd add that in the documentary "A Year in the Life of J.K. Rowling," which is featured on the DVD of Half-Blood Prince, one of the questions Rowling was asked (while sitting in the church she attended as a child) was, "Do you believe in God?" Not "Are you a Christian?" or "Do you attend church?" Just a simple question about whether she believes God exists. Rowling sort of scrunched up her face, looked at the ceiling, thought for a minute, then said slowly, "Yes. I've been struggling with it for a while, but yes." (not an exact quote) I think it's obvious, however, that whatever her personal beliefs, Christianity has been a huge impact on the story. There are so many good themes and values, and even a few direct correlations.

[rocklobster]

One thing that really bothers me about the Moral Guardians is that they quote Voldemort's philosophy that there is "no good or evil" (I forget the whole line and don't want to go through all my copies of the books hunting for it. Can someone who has a better memory give the exact quote?) as "proof" of the books being evil. All that proves is they're not bothering to do the research. I know from analyzing the Bible that context is always key when you're quoting. If you don't take the context surrounding the quote into account, you've lost the meaning. Traditionally, the villain is meant to be the antithesis of the writer's views. In other words, Voldemort is actually showing the reader what Rowling doesn't believe!
But then, some years ago, the same moral guardians thought C.S. Lewis was evil and trying to subvert Christianity. And he's actually well-known as a Christian. So sometimes, you can't win no matter what you do.

[Yamamaya]

One thing that really bothers me about the Moral Guardians is that they quote Voldemort's philosophy that there is "no good or evil" (I forget the whole line and don't want to go through all my copies of the books hunting for it. Can someone who has a better memory give the exact quote?) as "proof" of the books being evil. All that proves is they're not bothering to do the research. I know from analyzing the Bible that context is always key when you're quoting. If you don't take the context surrounding the quote into account, you've lost the meaning. Traditionally, the villain is meant to be the antithesis of the writer's views. In other words, Voldemort is actually showing the reader what Rowling doesn't believe!
But then, some years ago, the same moral guardians thought C.S. Lewis was evil and trying to subvert Christianity. And he's actually well-known as a Christian. So sometimes, you can't win no matter what you do.

I believe the tv tropes article on moral guardians can pretty much sum up my thoughts on them.

To be honest I feel like Christians are just wasting their time when they go after HP, D&D, LOTR, anime, etc. After all the Bible encourages us to spread the Gospel and to feed/clothe the poor. How are we doing either of these things by concentrating on fighting Harry Potter?

If a Christian actually researches wicca and can say how HP is very similar to wicca then maybe I'll listen to them.(which as we can see it is not similar to wicca).

[Radical Dreamer]

To be honest I feel like Christians are just wasting their time when they go after HP, D&D, LOTR, anime, etc. After all the Bible encourages us to spread the Gospel and to feed/clothe the poor. How are we doing either of these things by concentrating on fighting Harry Potter?

Agreed, and I really think the petty "you shouldn't read this because I think it's evil" argument entirely misses the point of Christianity. If "the greatest of these is love," then condemning one another over petty, disputable matters probably shouldn't even be in the equation.

[Yamamaya]

Agreed, and I really think the petty "you shouldn't read this because I think it's evil" argument entirely misses the point of Christianity. If "the greatest of these is love," then condemning one another over petty, disputable matters probably shouldn't even be in the equation.

That's very true but people will be people.

The weird thing is if Harry Potter was just a super hero rather than a magician there would be no moral outrage. But is there really any difference? They both use powers that fall apart from the realm of reality. The only difference is that HP calls such powers magic.

I've never seen the moral guardians attack Spider man and that's probably do to the fact if they did, they would awake to find their houses covered with spider webs.

[the_wolfs_howl]

One thing that really bothers me about the Moral Guardians is that they quote Voldemort's philosophy that there is "no good or evil" (I forget the whole line and don't want to go through all my copies of the books hunting for it. Can someone who has a better memory give the exact quote?) as "proof" of the books being evil. All that proves is they're not bothering to do the research. I know from analyzing the Bible that context is always key when you're quoting. If you don't take the context surrounding the quote into account, you've lost the meaning. Traditionally, the villain is meant to be the antithesis of the writer's views. In other words, Voldemort is actually showing the reader what Rowling doesn't believe!

*puts on Geek Hat*

I believe you're referring to something Quirrell says at the end of the first book, paraphrasing what Voldemort told him: "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." (In the movie, Voldemort says that himself.) But I think it's ridiculous to say that the books are touting this philosophy, because just a couple chapters before this scene, when Harry (the protagonist, the hero, the guy you're supposed to be rooting for and agreeing with) is steeling himself to go and save the Stone, he says (in a very Luke Skywalker-ish way) "I'm never going over to the Dark side!" Clearly, there's a distinction between what Voldemort's doing and what Harry and the other "good guys" stand for. It's about as obvious as you can get in the climax of that first book.

Some people....